IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT -- Re: NAT debate (Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios)

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 22 February 2019 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8061200D7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BPcPgTELdJQ0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc2c.google.com (mail-yw1-xc2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04981128766 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc2c.google.com with SMTP id s204so884493ywg.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:24:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JgXwd8aohGOQEiRin3Xdsd6YkwFOKpLjNSVkemH71Qg=; b=eC6t9jTTG5Nc/Y213pmATzwlFBCdg/YJJmw054oVsYVz+Tgk5hMOhkBntdGI+YswHZ ttmcbRXf+f/8n6tKPmeUUiGS9TQXt/VClqWXVJAC5upWfXsUwUGrR4uMG3K6IblQcpyJ XizNkJxJZqKt28ZARarDvzSgQ9JJMuDY4wnmUvt9eITKwKESo3pHdcshNqXLd/QWrWkk sQkGlz9Jymbyv49gy43UZ3t+8WYSS56vExNFDM+fyGWWrkJS6qa75gx2m6uSOCimYwjt IMVUEw3zLCS9lSKazFysVMaGYaWzKYBhrlfJzls7edHWHvmSXtKCrig3JTrJYsgpZFy2 Mn9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JgXwd8aohGOQEiRin3Xdsd6YkwFOKpLjNSVkemH71Qg=; b=Q9GW8NT0jlid04lcu8xKM21EVRZ5MxBRcxkPUEIn8HFC+6sl6RPAeU/YWtCtQUcU5p rwkltbOomjzumJscfstKOLZ9tkEmMqJqj0Wt6BBvdkGsEVKHquDddmM/or22hUu0leE3 MGhsiZSDwkftd086hmET9mguDsECWzXovVf64+zPOk1JHuFnz83TsgRkEUfSbSbWZTjb 8S+Db/nVR7vp0PHRKHidpxrGaTZ5JEKJmBc0+8+p4ANRt/CM+u/52SvgEgUXaNE68/YD O63aodBsssRlad152AL/waBFEisphuHRY4cO4Jb2BjLjmsi0XYAtuAuZzenVts9UXldc fV7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubIchwA+3kWcDfEZF5JfqcAbYqf5BDZL2tbmIwL6xceSCapRtBN k/QjNAOhMs5EO9Az8Js4yInZi8WQbWuwFf9G22k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaeUlsVURqOE6xwue5nAe0Gl8luoyJTwyNkkaAEA8pOQaINSiRUpIiEdNgTZJKdKj1VcNgbBPrKGdDaRHj6T6Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:98cf:: with SMTP id p198mr3545943ywg.54.1550845473765; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:24:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <20190220213107.GS71606@Space.Net> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com> <a73818d31db7422b99a524bc431b00ed@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2z9-48Gbb_Exf+oWUqDO=axSLpZBtqeDcxkAoFq5OziGw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S3624hnGauG1HaSWPMvQw0t2Q5R3gb8W4R8w3kuK7dcrWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F07F2BB-2F37-4D12-9731-7892DF4E3D88@consulintel.es> <1470063a-db4b-d2fc-a709-68e30736fbed@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36K5v9gusorEvj_uJjW4YwgERGdoWZOABREMpnqhJWJPw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR04MB4009E6096E8CF525931D46A5DD7F0@DM6PR04MB4009.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36_aOy3273zGM+26z+04xF2q4_iBfj6LkFjX3qvuJZERw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR04MB40096241EB14D0526F7131CDDD7F0@DM6PR04MB4009.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CAD6AjGRh1z9+N6K423e5kcPFceDXA8CcBX6EJ4uzv80SC_VW-g@mail.gmail.com> <4eac4cf8-a231-2221-e390-86ff55f63d64@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <4eac4cf8-a231-2221-e390-86ff55f63d64@hit.bme.hu>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:24:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGSGMLDvPNTzxziiQ+LRft9n3sASTL9ZPgYdvceFfV4t4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090be7405827c591e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yiEE3a41RuSUVsP79Lw8tZxuRlo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT -- Re: NAT debate (Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 14:24:37 -0000

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:27 AM Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu> wrote:

> Dear Cameron,
>
> 2/22/2019 5:08 AM keltezéssel, Ca By írta:
>
> [...]
>
> +1, i have had a good experience removing stateful devices for the
> majority of flows from a large mobile network over the last 5 years as we
> transitioned for 464xlat.   No downsides.
>
>
> However, 464XLAT also contains Stateful NAT64 (as PLAT). Have you
> experienced any problems with that? (E.g. bottleneck, no scale up, etc.)
>

Correct, that is why i said “majority” of flows

No, our NAT64 is the same box as the NAT44

This means that as soon as a client moves from ipv4 NAT44 to NAT64 the
client load on the box moves from 100% of traffic needing NAT44 to clients
only sending less than 35% of traffic to that box.


>
> Full disclosure:
> - I am soliciting your experience for our draft "Pros and Cons of IPv6
> Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS", available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-02
> - I personally think that 464XLAT is a good IPv4aaS solution, I am just
> playing the devil's advocate.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gábor Lencse
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email